- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 16:32:38 +0100
- To: fmanola@mitre.org, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
At 10:18 29/08/2002 -0400, Frank Manola wrote: >In the context of this discussion, I refer you to >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Aug/0167.html, in >which Pat Hayes says: > > > >Is there an appealing use case for untidy literals that is not long > > >range datatyping (aka implicit/global idiom)? > > > > > >Are we closing off any important extensibility paths if we go for > > >tidy literals? > > > > With regards to this last point, yes. DAML and OIL and probably OWL > > will need the flexibility of allowing (semantically) untidy literals, Thanks for reminding us of this Frank. There is also Jos's comment in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Aug/0254.html [[really? I haven't seen OWL supporting untidy literals]] Could someone please elaborate on owl's requirement. Brian
Received on Thursday, 29 August 2002 11:34:52 UTC